Dataset Information

Ramucirumab combined with FOLFOX as front-line therapy for advanced esophageal, gastroesophageal junction, or gastric adenocarcinoma: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter Phase II trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

We report the first randomized, Phase II trial of ramucirumab, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 monoclonal antibody, as front-line therapy in patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the esophagus or gastric/gastroesophageal junction (GEJ).

Patients and methods

Patients from the USA with advanced esophageal, gastric, or GEJ adenocarcinoma randomly received (1:1) mFOLFOX6 plus ramucirumab (8 mg/kg) or mFOLFOX6 plus placebo every 2 weeks. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) with 80% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.71 (one-sided α = 0.15). Secondary end points included evaluation of response and overall survival (OS); an exploratory ramucirumab exposure-response analysis was undertaken.

Results

Of 168 randomized patients, 52% of tumors were located in the stomach/GEJ and 48% in the esophagus. The trial did not meet the primary end point of PFS [6.4 versus 6.7 months, HR 0.98 (95% confidence interval 0.69-1.37)] or the secondary end point of OS (11.7 versus 11.5 months) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Objective response rates (45.2% versus 46.4%) were similar between arms. Most Grade ≥3 toxicities did not differ significantly between arms, yet premature discontinuation of FOLFOX and ramucirumab (for reasons other than progressive disease) was more common among ramucirumab- versus placebo-treated patients. In an exploratory analysis that censored for premature discontinuation, the HR for PFS favored the ramucirumab arm (HR 0.76), particularly in patients with gastric/GEJ cancer. An exploratory exposure-response analysis indicated that patients with higher ramucirumab exposure had longer OS.

Conclusion

The addition of ramucirumab to front-line mFOLFOX6 did not improve PFS in the ITT population.

Clinicaltrialsgov identifier

NCT01246960.

SUBMITTER: Yoon HH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7360144 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:This study compares neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) with perioperative chemotherapy (pCT) for patients with resectable esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma in terms of toxicity, postoperative complications, pathologic response, and survival.This study retrospectively analyzed and compared 313 patients with resectable esophageal or GEJ adenocarcinoma treated with either nCRT (carboplatin/paclitaxel 41.4 Gy, n = 176) or pCT (epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine, n = 137).The baseline and tumor characteristics were similar in both groups. The ability to deliver all planned preoperative cycles was greater in the nCRT group (92.0 vs. 76.6%). Whereas nCRT was associated with a higher rate of grades 3 and 4 esophagitis, pCT was associated with a higher rate of grades 3 and 4 thromboembolic events, febrile neutropenia, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, hand-foot syndrome, mucositis, cardiac complications, and electrolyte imbalances. Two patients in the pCT group died during neoadjuvant treatment due to febrile neutropenia. More postoperative cardiac complications occurred in the nCRT group. All other postoperative complications and the in-hospital mortality rate (nCRT, 4.7%; pCT, 2.3%) were comparable. The pathologic complete response (pCR) rate was 15.1% after nCRT and 6.9% after pCT. Radicality of surgery was comparable (R0: 93.0 vs. 91.6%). The median overall survival was 35 months after nCRT versus 36 months after pCT.For patients with esophageal or GEJ adenocarcinoma, chemoradiotherapy with paclitaxel, carboplatin and concurrent radiotherapy, and perioperative chemotherapy with epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabin lead to equal oncologic outcomes in terms of radical resection rates, lymphadenectomy, patterns of recurrent disease, and (disease-free) survival. However, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy is associated with a considerably lower level of severe adverse events and should therefore be the preferred protocol until a well-powered randomized controlled trial provides different insights.